ARTICLE

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 OPEN Authoritarianism as pathology of recognition: the sociological substance and actuality of the authoritarian personality ✉ Benno Herzog 1

The rise of the notions of authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality is directly linked to pathologies of early modernity and to social constellations that systematically produce 1234567890():,; dispositions of character that ultimately form the base of Nazi fascism. The aim of this article, thus, is to explore sociological actuality, i.e., the explanatory power and informative value of the concepts of authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality. Therefore, throughout the article, authoritarianism is framed as a social, i.e., relational approach, similar to that of recognition. However, as authoritarianism does not point towards autonomy, it can be read as a pathology of recognition. The text starts by presenting authoritarianism and authoritarian personality as introduced to the academic debate by early Critical Theory, including a description of the historical and intellectual conditions of the time. It then explores three essential elements of these concepts and how they have changed from then to now; namely, authorities, authoritarian measures, and psychological dispositions used to accept both. The sociological tools thus laid open are then used to respond to current questions about authoritarianism using the example of the impact of experts on crisis discourses. Pointing towards discursive mediation, I ask when and how the need to rely on experts fosters authoritarianism. There are basically two ways of understanding authoritarianism as still present in our society. The first is as a backward-leaning ideology of the good old times. Especially in politics, we can find a wish to overcome complex democratic decision-making procedures with strong, authoritarian leadership. The second form involves understanding authoritarianism not as a personal authority but as a swarm authority in the modern and (digital) panopticon. This pathology of recognition leads to alienated relations with others as mere anonymous providers of evaluations.

✉ 1 Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. email: [email protected]

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 1 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5

Introduction he notions of authoritarianism and the authoritarian primary enemy. World War I, or the Great War as it was then personality are “thick concepts”. They not only describe known, added a deeply worrying undertone to the question of T fi speci c social constellations. While the critical point human capacities. Instead of framing the question of what arising from these notions is deeply linked to the scientific humans will be capable of doing in the future as a question full of explication of fascism, both concepts at the same time serve as emancipatory hope, a new form of anthropological skepticism normative critiques: societies should not become authoritarian and fear arose. The use of poison gas as a means of indis- and should be organized such that they do not promote the criminate mass destruction gave the question of human capa- creation of authoritarian personalities or at least prevent these cities a frightening undertone. The history of humanity no longer from becoming hegemonic. had to be read as a success story of emancipation.1 From this In the notorious use of the Institute of Social Research point on, it was possible to clearly perceive the barbaric potential (Adorno, 1973; Horkheimer, 2005), both concepts refer to a of modern societies. pathology of capitalist modernity. The more psychological notion The second event that substantially changed western Marx- of the authoritarian personality is not meant to be a term for the ism was the Russian Revolution. The main impact of this event individualistic critique of certain deficiencies in one’s character. on the international working class surely was that of confirming Moreover, the concept is closely linked to social constellations that the theory of the possibility and even inevitability of proletarian systematically produce dispositions of character that ultimately revolution. However, the aftermath of the revolution cast doubt form the base of Nazi fascism. In other words, the starting and on the emancipatory praxis of the Soviet Union. Not only the endpoints of the critique of authoritarian personalities are not “revolutionary” elimination of tsarist and bourgeois social individuals but social constellations. In this sense, the notions of actors but also the persecution of revolutionary proletarian “character” or “personality”, although inspired by psychoanalysis, actors such as anarchists and Trotskyists started to divide the have to be understood as sociological. The critique of author- European left. The same can be said for the start of the itarian personalities, thus, is a social critique and a critique of discrediting of critical left intellectuals such as Georg Lukács authoritarian constellations, i.e., of authoritarianism. and many others. Skepticism about the emancipatory character However, in its current use, especially outside of the scientific of the Soviet Union as a model for emancipation culminated community in public discourse, the notion of authoritarianism with the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the often seems to beg a question. It is used without considering the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Radical proletarians fighting fascism, often social conditions of authoritarianism and describes all kinds of violently, across Europe thus felt that they had lost their most politics from right-wing to left-wing populism and martial powerful ally. militarism to COVID-19 politics. In addition, we cannot over- The impossibility of reading history easily as a success story look the fact that some of the constellations described in the first of progress and emancipation and doubts about the emancipa- part of the last century and that gave rise to the social- tory potential of the working class forced two main changes to psychological character of the authoritarian personality has Marxist theory. These doubts shaped from this point on the undergone important changes (see, Decker and Brähler, 2018; direction of unorthodox Marxism, such as that institutionalized Henkelmann et al., 2020). within the Institute of Social Research of Frankfurt with its The aim of this article, thus, is to explore sociological actuality, critical theory, followed by an interdisciplinary group of mainly i.e., the explanatory power and informative value of the concepts academic intellectuals. Classical Marxism, with its historical of authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality. Therefore, materialism, seemed incapable of understanding why the throughout the article, I frame authoritarianism as a social, i.e., working class would act against its own objective interests. relational approach, similar to that of recognition. However, as The two main approaches that critical theory introduced to authoritarianism does not point towards autonomy, it can be read classical Marxism were cultural and psychological (or psycho- as a pathology of recognition. analytical or sociopsychological). I start by presenting authoritarianism and authoritarian per- The concept of culture was needed to understand that the sonality as introduced to the academic debate by early Critical material forces of capitalism do not act unmediated upon Theory, including a description of the historical and intellectual individuals but find themselves embedded in—and mediated conditions of the time. In the second part, I explore three essential through—specific cultures. In sociology, Max Weber’s thesis of elements of these concepts and how they have changed from then the influence of Protestant culture on the increase in capitalism to now. Namely, I examine authorities, authoritarian measures (Weber, 2002) stands out prominently for this type of concern. In and psychological dispositions used to accept both. The socio- the environment of the Frankfurt School, we find, for example, logical tools thus laid open are then used to respond to current Lukács (2000) with his analysis of the interplay between the questions about authoritarianism using the example of the impact economic sphere and other spheres of social life, such as the legal of experts on crisis discourses. Pointing towards discursive sphere, and Kracauer (2004) and his interest in the relations mediation, I ask when and how the need to rely on experts fosters between (visual) culture, mass society and modern capitalism. authoritarianism. Psychological approaches were introduced to understand the irrational behaviors of humans, especially of the working class. From Freud (see especially 2002) to Fromm (e.g., 1997) and The thesis of the authoritarian personality Marcuse (e.g., 1991), irrational elements of human behavior were Historical background. The dedication to the authoritarian (also) explained by the influence of pathological social constella- personality of early Critical Theory has to be understood in light tions on the personalities of modern individuals. of the crisis of Marxism, which could be said to have started roughly with World War I and culminated at the end of the first half of the century. Two crucial moments must be mentioned. The thesis. All three elements, the classical Marxist analysis of First, the alignment of the European working class with mili- capitalist societies, theories on cultural mediation, and psycho- taristic nationalism. Instead of uniting forces and struggling for logical theories, greatly influenced the study of the authoritarian emancipation against international bourgeois domination, the personality (Adorno, 1973; Horkheimer, 2005). The theory international proletariat identified the national other as the basically states that social constellations (re-)produce a kind of

2 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 ARTICLE personality—the authoritarian personality—that willingly follows speculator, or in the figure of the Jew, it is rejected rather than authorities, power, and orders from above and is keen to exert embraced. Therefore, what is it about capitalism that fosters authoritarian power over lower social groups and outsiders. authoritarianism? There are at least three links between Following the authors of the study, authoritarianism is not only capitalism and authoritarianism. an economic phenomenon. Moreover, the suffix “-ism” points First, it is precisely the abstract, negative perception of the towards a phenomenon that crosses one clear delimited social circulation sphere that leads to a positive valuation of the sphere sphere and becomes hegemonic in vast parts of society. of production. The more the banker, the speculator, the Jew, or Authoritarian constellations can be found and are reproduced in economic capital becomes a scapegoat and is identified as very different social spheres. In the family, for example, the grabbing capital, the more will arise a positive identification with patriarchal authority of the father as nourisher and head of the creative and productive industrial capital and its personalized family is transmitted through an educational ideal of obedience. In representatives (Marx, 2012). Against the negative parasitic politics, a hierarchical structure of decision-making, obedience, and influence of the economic sphere stands the honorable patriarchal rule-following are seen as more effective than mechanisms of authority of the personal capitalist who cares not only for the democratic deliberation. It is the same authoritarian culture that is business but also for “his” workers. As already said, authorities also experienced in the workplace. Again: a clear hierarchy, with a are “removed” and converted by modern capitalism from a logical personally known superior, clear rules, and orders, is understood as and useful form of social organization into an “irrelevant” a desirable means of organizing the sphere of production. category. However, as this relation cannot be deciphered by social The material organization and social justification of important actors, instead of turning their aggression against capitalism and spheres of society by an authoritarian model must leave its trace the ruling class, violence is directed towards false personifications in the psychological structures of individuals and in their such as the already mentioned bankers, speculators, and Jews, as characters or personalities. According to Adorno, the authoritar- well as against those even worst off within and outside society. ian personality not only reflects a specific character produced by a Second, the capitalist culture of organizations produces social constellation but also points towards a social pathology. abstractions from the sensitive characteristics of things and beings. Irrational moments are experienced in both the individual and Group building leads to stereotyping or a “ticket mentality”,as the social organization. These moments could be understood with Adorno (1973) puts it. In other words, real abstraction and the help of psychology. While in agrarian societies, the wisdom of classification lead to the mental adoption, justification, and the elderly was considered highly valuable and therefore had hierarchical ordering of this social organization. “Ticket thinking authority, in modern societies this authority has slowly dissolved. is only possible because the existence of those who give in to this The new complexity of the social order requires constant type of thinking is determined to a great extent by ‘tickets’,by adaptation and the overthrowing of old authorities, modes of standardized, opaque and overpowering social processes that leave production, and socialization. Traditional values and modes of only very little liberty to the ‘individual’ for action and real decision-making and production constantly become revolutio- individuation” (Adorno, 1973, p. 307). The ticket mentality, nized. However, instead of adapting to this new situation, in a therefore, is not a faulty consciousness but the correct conscious- dialectical move, it seems that the more authorities are removed ness in a pathologic society. Capitalism creates a specificcapitalist and therefore threatened, the more irrationally and often strongly culture as an important precursor of the Frankfurt School, as societies hang on to old authoritarian models. The emptiness of Lukács (2000) has shown. the authoritarian superego is perceived by the authoritarian Third, cyclical crises are part of the capitalist mode of personality, but instead of formulating reflexive critique, this so- production (see also Harvey, 2014; Streeck, 2017). Crises do not produced aggressive potential is directed towards lower social directly lead to authoritarianism or to a desire for authoritarian groups and outsiders. measures. First, they present a certain “emergency”, i.e., a The concept of social pathology used here has been framed situation that calls for strategies of problem-solving. However, if differently throughout the literature (e.g., Freyenhagen, 2018; individuals have accepted authoritarianism as a valid resource for Honneth, 2008; Laitinen, 2015; Zurn, 2011). All the conceptua- problem-solving, authoritarian measures regarding capitalist lizations have in common that they refer to more than a specific crises are more likely (see also Dämgen, 2020). social problem, that can be solved through concrete political, To avoid a common misunderstanding, it should be mentioned technical, or social intervention. Often, the uses refer to structural that the authoritarian personality as conceived by the early problems in society. The main use of the concept refers to a kind Frankfurt School is not akin to being a high scorer on the school’s of second-order disorder (Zurn, 2011), i.e., a somehow false, famous f-scale measuring fascist attitudes. Low scorers can have flawed, or inverted perception about reality. And even inter- authoritarian personalities, for example, if their everyday lives are pretations of social pathologies as a third-order disorder—i.e., an characterized by a typologized organization that leads to the impossibility to turn critical views into action—can be found (for ticket mentality. Therefore, it would also be erroneous to talk a good overview see Laitinen, 2015). In this article, social about one authoritarian personality, as different personalities pathology is understood in its most common version, as a show dispositions for authoritarian attitudes. A reified use of the structurally (i.e., stemming from the social order itself) flawed concepts can be avoided by using the term syndrome in relation perception of reality with important consequences. So, when to authoritarian constellations (see also Adorno, 1973). The term authoritarianism is seen here as a social pathology, it is in order to syndrome refers to the connection of authoritarianism in stress the irrational moments of insisting on an emptied form of different spheres and regarding different social situations. social organization that no longer fits society. Authoritarianism Therefore, it refers, for example, to the likelihood of negative can be described as a pathology because it is a lack of second- attitudes towards one subordinated group being related to its order reflection about the changing reality. negative attitudes towards itself. While in specific industrial companies in the early nineteenth From a sociological perspective, authority and its theses of century, the hierarchical authorities were quite omnipresent, on a authoritarianism and authoritarian personality have to be general level, the relation between capitalism and authoritarian- understood as relational. These terms express a relation between ism was not obvious. Capitalism itself is a very much impersonal the authority and the authoritarian personality that willingly form of domination. Moreover, in those where domination follows commands. Both, in different situations, can serve as the becomes personalized, especially in the form of the banker, the commanding authority or that who receives orders. At first

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 3 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 glance, it could seem that we are facing here a form of The actual relevance of the thesis recognition. Authorities have to be recognized as such by From this presentation of the main ideas of the thesis of individuals to permit the following of orders. Milbradt (2020), authoritarianism, it might already be clear why the theory is referring to Kojève, explains that authority requires the “not sometimes considered outdated. Educational aims and family, executed possibility” of not following authoritarian invocation. political, and workplace organizations no longer seem to follow The divine, therefore, is not an authority in the sociological sense, the ideal of hierarchical obedience. Instead, more individual as there is no possibility for humans to escape divine power. responsibility, proactivity, and self-realization or the “entrepre- Contrary to the divine or, more specifically, contrary to direct neurial self” (Bröckling, 2015) seem to be the guiding ideals of a dictatorship or tyranny, the authoritarian mode of the social new form of social organization. It would be naïve to think that organization depends on emotional complicity and a will to obey these changes in the constellations of social organization and (ibid.). Authority always requires a form of willing obedience that justification would not lead to important changes in an indivi- in turn depends on whatever form of legitimation is used. It is dual’s personality. In what follows, I want to explore important precisely this legitimation that could be understood as a basic aspects of authoritarianism that have changed substantially from form of recognition. The authoritarian personality recognizes the the first half of the last century to the present. authority as a person (or institution) with specific rights for We could roughly say that the authoritarian relation requires demanding obedience. three elements: (a) an authority, (b) an authoritarian measure, act However, contrary to the mutual recognition of the tradition of or requirement, and (c) a willingly obeying person. With these left-Hegelianism, we could speak here of a pathologic form of three different elements and the three different approaches to recognition, a flawed reflection of the character of recognition. culture, psychology, and capitalism, we can now analyze how Taking Ikäheimo’s(2002)definition of recognition as “a case of A much authoritarian relationships have changed and what this taking B as C in the dimension of D, and B taking A as a relevant could mean for the sociological actuality of the thesis of the judge” (p. 450), we can see the intersubjectivity inherent in this authoritarian personality. definition and therefore the social character and sociological First, we must recognize that old unipersonal authorities have relevance of the notion of recognition. Several aspects of this clearly changed or no longer exist. In the family, gender equality definition can be underlined: and a change in the educational ideal from obedience to self- determination have transformed inner-family interactions. 1. Recognition is a term referring to persons, that is, to human fi Violence and the threat thereof, although still existing, is no beings with speci c characteristics that can be either longer seen as an adequate form of education. Dialogic pressure granted (recognized) or not granted. In this sense, when fi ’ is imposing the need for discursive justi cation. In the same we recognize, for example, someone s right to give us way, in the workplace, direct authority is often replaced with orders, we recognize the human being as a person with that administrative management techniques. In the political realm, right. More generally, when we recognize someone as a the trends seem less clear. Liberal democracies require colla- person, we recognize her as a human being gifted with fi boration, concessions, tolerance, and discursive negotiation. speci c needs, moral capacities, and/or socially valuable Foucault (2004) argues that direct paternalistic authority has traits. been replaced with techniques of governmentality, i.e., the good 2. Recognition as a notion of social interaction in two ways: government that creates and incites instead of working with top-down commands. However, there are still—again—ten- a. A person cannot be recognized by herself alone. Instead, dencies across a large variety of national societies and of dif- there must be at least one person or institution that ferent political spectra calling for strong leadership. Here, it recognizes her. seems that precisely the permanent conflictivity of democracies b. The recognizing institution/person must be in a certain has influenced the need for an unambiguous strong union and sense recognized by the other as able to provide true for leadership. recognition. Regarding authoritarian measures, we can say that practices It is especially this last point that, in mutual recognition, leads and ideals of punishment adopted in the family (and to some to a strong, autonomous, nonpathological self. It is a dialogical degree also in the political sphere and the workplace) have sub- model based on the capacity of the individual to grant (or deny) stantially changed. The shouting father and the loud boss are now recognition to those who recognize. This mutuality presents a seen as anachronistic. These practices no longer refer to authority democratic, empowering, and emancipatory element aiming at but are seen as symptoms that something has grown out of the the autonomy of individuals. control of the former authority. In the work sphere, bonds to In this sense, authoritarian dynamics could even be understood companies are becoming weaker. The demand to sacrifice all for as the opposite of the mutual recognition developed by Honneth the good of the company is acquiesced more due to sheer eco- (1995), which points towards emancipation (Decker et al., 2018). In nomic need and dependency, or the interiorization of external authoritarian relationships, one can precisely not develop a positive commands, than by clear authoritarian will and command on the self-relation (self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-respect) but one hand and by complicity on the part of the workers. In depend on an external, dominating form of recognition. The aim of addition, in the political sphere, we can see that Western politics recognition in left-Hegelianism is the development of an have difficulties demanding total obedience. For example, diffi- autonomous personality or a character guided by inner, reflexive culties in finding the will to risk one’s life for one’s nation was one forces and not by external impositions. Authoritarianism would reason why most Western countries chose to abolish compulsory then be a form of social pathology because it hinders the (second- military service. order) reflection about the full character of recognition. First, the These changes in authorities and practices in all three spheres love of the authoritarian father is as crippled as the respect of cannot be without effects on personalities. Since the last quarter of the authoritarian state towards its citizens or the esteem of the the twentieth century, it seems as if the narcissistic or hedonistic authoritarian boss towards the employees. And second, the personality has been a more widespread and dominant figure authoritarian personality is not able to reflect on this limited than the authoritarian one. This new personality does not see in character and to de-recognize the authorities, but instead is begging obedience an ideal to follow and is not willing to pay the price of for the straw of pathologic recognition. subjection to become part of the power itself. The hedonistic or

4 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 ARTICLE narcissistic personality does not want to be limited by a personal, to all kinds of comments, including those from known peers or superior authority. However, this new type of personality again from the anonymous world of so-called “friends” and “followers”. depends on some form of pathological recognition: self-centered Individuals subject their self-relation to the recognition of an personalities depend on attention from others that constantly anonymous mass. Likes, friends, and followers determine levels of reaffirms their positive self-image, whether obtained from sexual self-esteem and self-respect. partners, friends, followers, or likes on social media. This new However, not only are sources of authority changing. In type of personality can be interpreted as an even less autonomous addition, the norms and values to which one must subject oneself individual than the authoritarian personality. Its dependence on are being blurred. In the public sphere, there are so many external sources is far more diffuse and impersonal than in the contradicting norms that the individual cannot follow them all. case of a clear authoritarian structure. Ottomeyer (2020) mentions some of these norms and values: In mutual recognition as a condition for successful self- “empathy and egoism, honesty and outsmarting the competition, relation and autonomy, the self—by recognizing others—creates cooperation and orientation towards individual careers, ‘burning meaningful embeddedness in the social structure. On the con- for the company’ and job-distance, asceticism and consumerism, trary, in the case of mere attention or a pathological need for thriftiness and lustfulness of wanting to possess […] love to recognition, the other is only perceived as a mere tool. At the animals and pork cutlet, control of effects and infantilism, the same time, the other, as an unrecognized other, cannot provide pursuit of profit and the common good, impression management, meaningful recognition. For the self-centered personality, the and authenticity, bonding and ‘freedom from bonds’, fidelity in other lacks any characteristic that could give meaning to one’s the partnership and public sexiness, manliness, and gender own recognition. Therefore, we could also speak of a form of sensibility […] acceleration and slowing down” (363). As is easily alienation, a relation of nonrelation (Jaeggi, 2014), that leaves an observed, based on these (and other incompatible) agglomera- emptyspaceinthehedonisticornarcissistic personality. This tions of norms, individuals permanently find themselves alienation is a kind of estrangement in which the source of in situations of insecurity, constantly vulnerable to critique. At recognition, which is the very own recognition by the individual the same time, they can always formulate critiques of others, towards those who give recognition, is somehow fading away. which becomes easier with growing social distance, anonymity, While in true recognition, the individual itself forms part of the and volatility in social relations and networks. mutual relation of recognition, in this self-centered version, In the work sphere, constant evaluations and algorithms that recognition becomes a one-way road from the other towards measure our performance often place us in a “digital panopticon” oneself. The individual is thus giving away its possibility to (Angermuller, 2010). Impersonal evaluations with important decide whom to recognize. material consequences for workers are omnipresent. We can If in this constellation, the other is in some way meaningful for evaluate our Amazon transactions, “our” Glovo riders, and Uber one’s own self-relation, then this is often not due to a specific drivers. Hotels, restaurants, and all kinds of shops, services, and personal characteristic that is recognized by the self-centered products are evaluated, recommended, and ranked by millions of individual but due to social status, the other had attained willing helpers. The individual is thus exposed not to one beforehand. Therefore, for example, a retweet of one’s tweets by a powerful and identifiable authority but to an amorphous army to celebrity is seldom valuable for the moral capacity of that celeb- whose criteria—although not directly expressed but often hidden rity but for the mere status and attention drew by this person. behind points and stars—one better subject. We now have the conceptual tools to understand how these social conditions of constantly being under impersonal supervision Authoritarianism saved—new forms of authoritarianism. Due present a new scenario for authoritarianism and the authoritarian to these obvious changes in social reality, the concepts of personality. Despite being narcissistic, or even due to narcissism, authoritarianism and the authoritarian personality can no longer the promise of pleasure is linked to hyperconformity. At the same be used as they were used when they were developed by Adorno time, due to contradictory norms and values, frustration, envy, and collaborators in the first half of the last century. Forcing such shame, and aggression are constantly lurking as a threat to one’s concepts upon our current reality would mean a reification of own narcissism. The current world is full of ambiguous norms. these concepts rather than treating them as changing, sociological However, insecurity stemming from the ambiguity of norms under concepts that always depend on the specific historic context in constant observation creates intolerance and an inability to bear place. So, what (if anything) can be rescued from the insights of ambiguities. Virtual arguments can break out at any moment for a Adorno and his collaborators? Or, to the contrary, could we crossing of any norm. Constant impersonal threat and stress, as perhaps say that authoritarianism and the authoritarian person- well as a lack of clear guidelines on how to avoid risks, can be ality no longer play a relevant role in our societies? understood as a ground for contemporary, secondary authoritar- One of the core ideas of authoritarianism is that of a weak ianism. Furthermore, a growing number of people are excluded individual who is willingly subject to the authority of others. The from the possibility of being part of the selected group of happy fact that today the other seldom has personal, the strong authority consumers and from experiencing even short-term satisfaction could cause us to perceive an end of authoritarianism. However, deriving from consumerism. we could also conceive of a simple change in authority that Although this form of behavior contains elements of (hyper) influences the individual. Oliver Decker & Brähler (2018, 2019) conformity (see also Castoradis, 2001), it could better be therefore speaks of “secondary authoritarianism” when referring understood as a form of (secondary) authoritarianism. In to the impersonal authority that contemporary individuals are sociology conformity mainly refers to the (a) implicit pressure subjected to. (b) by the peers in order to fit a specific group. The impersonal These impersonal authorities are quite diverse. Yet, it is evaluations mentioned here do only seldom stem from equals, but precisely due to their diversity and even ambiguity, that they are mostly from superiors and especially clients. The direction of this almost omnipresent and more powerful than personal ones. The pressure does not aim towards fitting into the group of clients but decline of the authoritarian father figure does not leave a vacuum to subordinate the evaluated under the criteria of these clients. I but is replaced by other family members, peers, the mass media, speak of (secondary) authoritarianism here because its main and to a growing degree new and social media, as we have seen. features are that of an (a) hierarchical society that gives (b) clear Voluntary exposure through social networks also exposes people orders of behavior.

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 5 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5

Heumann and Nachtwey (2020), in their explorative research, The problem of domination as an essential part of identify a type of “regressive rebel” very similar to the authoritarian dynamics becomes more complicated if we focus authoritarian personality. What is interesting in their research on impersonal domination as present in secondary authoritar- is that they take a deeper look at the factors that could prevent ianism. Following the thesis of impersonal domination, human authoritarian desolidarization. In their work, the authors beings are dominated by all kinds of structural and systemic identify as especially prone to regressive positions those social mechanisms. Not only the already mentioned likes, followers, groups who do not experience, live or learn about cooperation and impersonal evaluations but also the patriarchy, capitalism, and solidarity in their workplaces but whose contact with others discourses, ideologies, etc. refer to different forms of domination is limited to superiors, to the marked, and to clients. This that, although they require human beings for their reproduction, reflection relates very much to the idea of impersonal cannot be understood as personal forms of domination. This evaluation, where the evaluator is a diffuse mass or institution kind of domination also pushes people into subordinate and not a “significant other” (Mead). There is no opportunity to positions while sustaining higher positions for others. None- recognize in any meaningful way those who recognize (or theless, such domination does not depend mainly on the will of disrespect) us via an anonymous rating system. There are no those in higher positions. dialogical forms with no negotiation of mutual recognition. Again, the question of whether these impersonal moments are Again, this type of authoritarianism seems to be a pathological part of authoritarian dynamics depends on whether these form of recognition, a mere anonymous ranking. As an impersonal structures can be considered expressions of one’s anonymous mass, the other is only de-facto recognized by the own illustrated will, conditions of one’s social freedom (Honneth, sheer pressure of its relevance but not due to some specific 2011), or institutions that hinder a positive self-relation. moral characteristics of those who recognize. To be full and true Institutions and structures with all of their power over the recognition, again, the reflection about the mutual character of individual would then be part of freedom and not of domination this relationship is almost completely missing. if they allow the individual to understand these structures as both In understanding this new type of impersonal authority and conditions and products of the own rational interests. In contrast, narcissistic personality, we can also comprehend how authority if structures and institutions hinder the development of turns into authoritarianism, i.e., how it becomes dominant. It is individual rational interests, then we speak of structural not only one social sphere that is under constant threat and domination. As is argued above, this domination is often enabled pressure. The imperative to subject oneself to the authority of the by masses of willing helpers who validate authoritarian norms anonymous masses and to rush towards constant self- and measures through everyday interactions. Therefore, we could improvement and adaptation in a minefield of contradicting also speak of swarm domination by an anonymous mass that norms is present in all social spheres. For its omnipresence and imposes this secondary authoritarianism. early internalization, this authority can be even stronger than the However, the question of whether authoritarianism truly acts external authority. Although the external authority is willingly against rational interests cannot easily be answered. We are followed, it remains an external force. According to the classical here confronted with a classical problem of ideology research. theory of authoritarianism, the willingly obeying individual takes Ideology, as Terry Eagleton (1991) says, is like bad breath: we part in authoritarian power but is not the source of it. In contrast, only detect it in the other. In the left-Hegelian tradition under secondary authoritarianism, everyone seems to be at the ideology is always related to some false approach to reality, as a same time the author and the addressee of comments, likes, and necessary inverted world consciousness (see Herzog, discourses. By actively taking part in the valuation and ranking of 2018, 2021). To state that someone has an ideological point others, one implicitly confirms the validity of these practices of of view seems to imply that the critic of ideology has a social evaluation. privileged standpoint from which to identify others who supposedly act against their own interests. If the criticized deny being trapped in ideology and affirm having real interests Authoritarianism as domination. Until now, we have not different than those identified by the external observer, for reflected on an important feature that seems so obvious that it can some orthodox critics, this would only show how deeply easily be forgotten. Namely, authoritarianism is a form of dom- entrenched in a veil of ignorance the other is. In other words, ination. Domination, even if having a component of voluntary once the fact that there is ideology is acknowledged, i.e., a way submission, always involves a moment of external power or of thinking (and acting) contrary to the unrecognized interests influence over the will of another. Therefore, when I ask another of the social actor, there is no way to empirically demonstrate person for advice due to his/her expertize in a given field, this the truth of this statement. person is not part of an authoritarian dynamic as the action has The approach of authoritarianism can help us overcome this its starting point in me and not in the other person. When I visit a epistemological rupture of ideology research. One of the main medical doctor or I ask my tax consultant for advice, I am not theses about authoritarian constellations states that authoritar- only the endpoint of the action (to seek medications or modify ianism does not act against but with the interests of the my tax declaration) but also the one who sought a way to change dominated. Here it comes to play that ideology is not plainly my behavior in the first place. false perception, but can be true and false at the same time; they Here, we could have other criteria for when and how can be the right perception of a wrong reality. In our case, this authorities play a role in emancipation or act as part of an would mean that authoritarianism not only promises but truly authoritarian dynamic. If the other person tries to influence my provides an, at least, psychological benefit by letting the behavior unsolicited, i.e., when the other acts out of his/her own subordinate become part of the power relation and by even volition, then we can speak of a form of domination that can letting the subordinate exercise power over others, who can occur in authoritarian dynamics. If instead, the will has its include outsiders, nonconformists, or even more subordinate starting and endpoints in me, then the other is not exercising social groups. In other words, authoritarianism relates to the domination but lending a helping hand. Or, to use Hegelian interests of the dominated in a dialectical way: it acts against their terms: when the authority is a condition for my own self-relation legitimate interest in emancipation, autonomy, and self-determi- and life plans, then we are facing a nonpathological recognition of nation, but at the same time, it serves some of their basic needs to authority and not a pathological, authoritarian one. be part of a power structure. Authoritarianism (traditional or

6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 ARTICLE secondary), therefore, not seduces by deceiving. Instead, it already diversity in opinions and (unproven) facts. Especially since the acts in the interest of the dominated (Decker et al., 2018). spread of social media as a source of information, a large variety To oppose secondary authoritarianism, the very same strong of affirmations, claims, and calls for action can be found which personality that Adorno also mentioned with regard to often even stand in direct contradiction to each other. (traditional) authoritarianism is needed: “Emancipated [Mündig] The social disorder requires cultural schemes to make sense of is who speaks for himself because he has thought for himself and these multiple voices and to allow the social practice. The dif- not only repeats; who is not patronized. This is shown in the ferent cultural and political models available to respond to crises power to resist against pre-given opinions, and, together with do not simply follow a top-down model. In different crisis dis- that also against already existing institutions, against everything courses, we can find a different willingness of the population to only established which justifies itself with its sheer existence” give up individual freedom, submit to strong leadership and opt (Adorno, 1971, p. 10). for national problem-solving strategies. For example, a first comparative study by Amat et al. (2020) suggested that the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in the strongest willingness to Discursive mediation submit to authoritarian and nationalist measures. The authors In describing the relation of the social constellation to the psy- compared this willingness to submit to strong leadership to what chical disposition of an authoritarian personality to follow direct has been observed in other crises, such as the recent economic or indirect authoritarian orders, we have almost completely dis- crisis and crises involving terrorist threats. regarded the aspect of mediation. Whether social situations lead Authoritarian strategies not only stem from the government to authoritarianism also depends on the discursive mediation of but are supported by psychological desires (of an authoritarian or the cultural schemes available to make sense of a given situation. narcissistic personality) and social perception. This perception In other words, cultural schemes are produced not only by social can be understood as emerging from the TINA (there is no constellations. At the same time, they precede social responses to alternative) doctrine and from the creation of a specific form of the material organization of society. social urgency from which democratic processes of deliberation The mediation of social situations becomes important when must seem too lengthy and ineffective. This TINA doctrine often understanding authoritarianism as a pathology of recognition. As pairs with the idea that there is no sufficient. There can always be we have seen, the difference between legitimate authority and more action against terrorist threats, health problems, or eco- authoritarianism can be found in mutual recognition. We can nomic risks. The lack of a standard of what can count as sufficient understand this process of recognition as a process of discursive can perpetuate the authoritarian consequences of TINA and the and symbolic communication and negotiation. When possibilities will to give up ever more individual freedom in favor of struggling to renegotiate the position of authorities are impeded, author- against certain threats. itarianism is near. In this last part, I concentrate on the mediation On the other hand, following the indications of authorities is of authoritarianism as a pathology of recognition. I do so by not the same as authoritarianism. The modern world is full of exploring the case of the effects of experts on crisis discourses and specialized knowledge to which we have little access, therefore ask when an expert has legitimate authority and when s/he acts as requiring us to depend on the expertize of specialists. The terms a part of structural authoritarianism. With this example, we find used to describe these specialists usually bear different connota- that “old” schemes of interpretation are still present. The thread tions. In public discourse, we can find references to “experts”, of the self-centered personality by social crisis can easily lead to “scientists” or “public intellectuals” as mainly positive connotated new forms of old authoritarianism. terms but also references to “technocrats”, the “elite” or the Social crises can be understood as collective perceptions of an “establishment” as increasingly negatively perceived social actors. urgent problem that requires collective attendance. At the same The terms “expert” and “technocrats” differ in that in the latter time, such crises present threats for the self-centered personality, case, the necessarily partial view of the expert is implicitly criti- as social ruptures endanger the already precarious maintenance of cized. Crisis discourses are discourses of complex global threats. the (already alienated) self-relation. Here, we could consider the All of these threats require a holistic understanding of the given recent socio-financial crisis of 2008, the climate crisis, or the situation. Experts usually have a very limited view. For example, a recent COVID-19 crisis. In all of these cases, there is a growing virologist has different expertize on COVID-19 than an econo- social perception that “something has to be done”. However, in mist or a child psychologist; feminist scholars contribute different our highly functionally differentiated society, there is often no expertize than political scientists. At the same time, experts seem center of power that has the capacity to bring all of this different to offer a stable anchor point for social perception, as we have knowledge and discourse together. There is often not even one seen throughout the COVID-19 crisis in several countries. Here, a single sphere of public discourse. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, few governmental experts explain almost on a daily basis the state etc. create discursive detachment from a common debate and of events to the population. The ritualized form of such press hinder an interchange of ideas and arguments. conferences serves—as with all rituals—as a source of stability. Therefore, the practical outcomes of debates on a crisis or The question is now whether, or rather, when and how, discursive struggles in crisis discourses not only depend on the experts’ specialized knowledge is used as part of the author- “unforced force of the better argument” (Habermas) but are itarian constellation. This logically also includes the emancipa- mainly the result of power relations. Material and communicative tory question of in which social constellations highly specialized resources established before the crisis have a continued influence expert knowledge contributes to emancipation. Experts as per- on the crisis discourse. To understand crisis discourses, we, sons assume a somehow hybrid position between personal and therefore, have to comprehend the power relations between the abstract authority. Although high-profile experts are well- different elements of the multiple voices of the discourse. In known personalities in a specific field, their authority does not addition, there are not only structural and material orders of stem from them as charismatic persons. Instead, they represent discourses stemming from a pre-crisis order that might hinder a only the specific (technical) reasoning applied in their fields of satisfactory negotiation of viewpoints, interests, and recognition. expertize. Moreover, part of the success of experts as discursive There is also the threat of the urgency and hyper-complexity of actors is rooted in the fact that they do not present their advice crises promoting the desire for easy, authoritarian, or populist as stemming from a specific personality but as the position of solutions. Furthermore, the new media also form spaces of hyper- specific, technical reasoning. An expert does not call to follow

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 7 ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 the expert as a person but to follow impersonal, bureaucratic regard to classical authoritarianism. These processes seem quite expert knowledge. independent of that of secondary authoritarianism. However, The measures proposed by experts are as diverse as their secondary authoritarianism can create the basis of insecurity fields of expertize. Here, we find recommendations compatible needed to follow experts even when they are no longer with the narcissistic personality, such as those of economic legitimized. experts wanting us to consume more to overcome an economic In situations of complex social crisis, cultural models of simple crisis, and classical authoritarian measures, such as those sup- authoritarian and top-down conflict resolution strategies can ported by a military expert recommending sending troops into sometimes be reactualized. New figures such as the expert can a mortal battle. The legitimation of the expert as the voice of take personify the impersonal authority of reason. However, as reason directly influences the will to obey. Those not following the reason in complex situations exceeds by far what a sole expert expert advice are socially positioned by the discourse as or even a sole discipline can cover, expert reason can become unreasonable (see also Keller, 2005). The concrete measure authoritarian when not embedded in—again complex—processes itself can be lamented, but the expert, as an impersonation of of deliberation. reason, can hardly be criticized. However, the more expert knowledge is contested and debated by other experts (as well as Conclusions by laymen), the more it seems to be the expert him/herself and We have seen how the theory of authoritarianism and the not abstract knowledge that calls for certain measures. In this authoritarian personality developed as a reaction to the imminent case, experts can become objects of public critique and even of and past (but therefore no less imminent) social and political scapegoating. threats of the first half of the last century. The theory brought For the willingness to submit to experts, we could think of together economic, cultural, and psychological insights to expert knowledge as part of the contemporary authoritarian understand the complex interplay between social constellations constellation. The classical experiment by Milgram (1974) shows and a specific type of personality. However, social constellations how supposed academic experts were able to have others inflict have since changed in important ways. Flexibilization, accelera- harm or even kill a third person. In this famous study on obe- tion, liquid modernity and so on all describe contemporary dience, framed as a scientific experiment on education, authority constellations in which strong and static authoritarianism is given was followed even though most of the participants reported little space. unease with the situation. Interviews conducted after the Nevertheless, there are basically two ways of understanding experiment revealed important elements of the authoritarian authoritarianism as still present in our society. The first is as a syndrome, including the justification of aggression towards the backward-leaning ideology of the good old times. Especially in other due to alleged noncollaborative behavior. politics, we can find a wish to overcome complex democratic From a recognitional point of view, this reflection on experts decision-making procedures with strong, authoritarian leader- brings us to another important criterion for the differentiation of ship. The second form involves understanding authoritarianism authorities from authoritarianism. Not only must there be certain not as a personal authority but as a swarm authority in the mutuality in recognition. It was argued that there must also be a modern and (digital) panopticon. The personality that is volun- possibility to discursively renegotiate the relations and content of tarily subject to this secondary authoritarianism can be perfectly recognition. However, this would require competence among described as self-centered, hedonistic, or narcissistic. By mistak- “ordinary” people to evaluate the very specific technical knowl- ing attention, clicks, and likes for recognition, this personality edge of experts. What is needed instead is critical access to depends on others without being able to create meaningful rela- metaknowledge, i.e., access to knowledge of the distribution and tionships. This pathology of recognition leads to alienated rela- implications of expert knowledge. In times where it is very easy to tions with others as mere anonymous providers of evaluations. access information created by self-proclaimed “experts” or those Finally, we saw how fragile secondary authoritarian constella- even recognized in specific filter bubbles and echo chambers such tions are. Cultural schemes of interpretation of complex problem- as those of climate and Holocaust deniers and creationists, it solving strategies as too lengthy and the psychological need for becomes increasingly important to be informed of the acknowl- unambiguity can lead to a resurgence of old authoritarianism in edged experts in a specific field. new forms, for example, in the form of experts as part of a Nonetheless, from fake news to filter bubbles and from media technocratic government. illiteracy to the forces of information architecture (Munn, 2020), In our societies, we can find a mixture of old authoritarianism, we can find several threats to this possibility of informed medi- secondary authoritarianism, and old authoritarianism with new ated recognition. The success of problem-solving strategies faces. Authoritarian personalities combine with self-centered in situations of social crisis depends on the possibility of effec- personalities. Instead of being opposing forms of personality, tively orchestrating the inner logics of these discursive produc- both lack a strong sense of self. The identification of authoritar- tions on the capacity to reinvent discourse orders, i.e., on the ianism as a form of pathologic recognition has been able to reveal capacity to reform or revolutionize discursive infrastructure. With this relation to others in the form of mutual recognition and self- the term “discursive infrastructure”, I refer to arguments, relation. Only true, meaningful relations of recognition can knowledge, and categories, as well as to material, institutional and generate nonpathological self-relations. All types of authoritarian practical conditions. If categories, institutions, etc. cannot be part constellations impede the creation of these meaningful relations. of dynamic change, then the dangers of reification and therefore of authoritarian regression are imminent. Received: 21 December 2020; Accepted: 20 May 2021; So, in the best of cases, specialized knowledge, represented by experts must not be understood as authoritarianism. When embedded in competent bureaucratic legitimation and meta- knowledge about the relation and relevance of different expertize, Note then, specialized knowledge can be seen rather as a moment of 1 Of course, very skeptical scenarios warning of the decline of western societies had emancipation. On the contrary when this bureaucratic legitima- already been raised prior to WWI. However, although these theses had a certain tion is lacking, then, the expert is threatened to turn into the same influence on the Marxist left, they were mostly conservative ones who saw in urban emptied and “old” authority that was described before with modernity an expression of social and cultural decline.

8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 ARTICLE

References Keller R (2005) Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse–Grundlegung eines For- Adorno ThW (1971) Kritik. Kleine Schriften zur Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Franf- schungsprogrammes. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden kurt/Main Kracauer S (2004) From Caligari to Hitler: a psychological history of the German Adorno ThW (coord.) (1973) Studien zum autoritären Charakter. Suhrkamp, Film. Princeton, University Press Franfkurt/Main Laitinen, A (2015) Social pathologies, reflexive pathologies, and the idea of higher- Angermuller J (2010) Wissenschaft zählen. Regieren im digitalen Panopticon. order disorders. Stud Soc Polit Thought 250 https://doi.org/10.20919/ Leviathan, Berliner Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft 24:174–190 sspt.25.2015.48 Amat F, Falcó-Gimeneo A, Arenas A, Muñoz J (2020) Pandemics meet democracy. Lukács G (2000) History and class consciousness: studies in marxist dialectics. MIT Experimental evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Spain. SocArXiv https:// Press, Cambridge doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/dkusw Marx K (2012) [1894] Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Vol 3. Dietz, Bröckling U (2015) The entrepreneurial self: fabricating a new type of subject. Berlin SAGE, London Marcuse H (1991) One-dimensional man: studies in ideology of advanced indus- Castoradis C (2001) The retreat from autonomy: post-modernism as generalised trial society. Routledge, London conformism. Democracy Nat 7(1):17–26 Milbradt B (2020) Was begreift der Begriff “Autoritarismus”? In: Henkelmann K Decker O, Brähler E (eds) (2018) Flucht ins autoritäre. Rechtsextreme Dynamiken et al. (eds) Konformistische Rebellen. Zur Aktualität des Auto- in der Mitte der Gesellschaft. Psychosozialverlag, Giessen ritärenCharakters. Verbrecher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 53–74 Decker O (2019) La obsolescencia del carácter autoritario y el autoritarismo Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority: an experimental view. Harber, Michigan secundario. Constelaciones, Revista De Teoría Crítica 10:57–73 Munn L (2020) Angry by design: toxic communication and technical architectures. Decker O, Schuler J, Brähler E (2018) Das autoritäre Syndrom heute. In: Decker O, Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7:53 Brähler E (eds) Flucht ins autoritäre. Rechtsextreme dynamiken in der Mitte Ottomayer K (2020) Autoritarismus im Kapitalismus und Neoliberalismus. In: der Gesellschaft. Psychosozialverlag, Giessen, pp. 1117–1155 Henkelmann K et al. (eds) Konformistische Rebellen. Zur Aktualität des Decker O, Yendell A, Brähler E (2018) Anerkennung und autoritäre Staatlichkeit. Autoritären Charakters. Verbrecher Verlag, Berlin, pp. 349–367 In: Decker O, Brähler E (eds) Flucht ins autoritäre. Rechtsextreme dynamiken Streeck W (2017) Buying time. The delayed crisis of democratic capitalism. Verso, in der Mitte der Gesellschaft. Psychosozialverlag, Giessen, pp. 157–177 London Dämgen S (2020) Kein Subjekt. Nirgends? Autoritärer Charakter, Subjekt und Weber M (2002) The Protestant ethic and the “spirit” of capitalism and other Gesellschaft in der Krise. In: Henkelmann K et al. (eds) Konformistische writings. Penguin, London Rebellen. Zur Aktualität des Autoritären Charakters. Verbrecher Verlag, Zurn CF (2011) Social pathologies as second-order disorders. In: Petherbridge D Berlin, pp. 297–311 (ed) Axel Honneth: Critical Essays with a Reply by Axel Honneth. Brill, Eagleton T (1991) Ideology. An introduction. Verso, London Leiden, pp. 345–370 Freyenhagen F (2018) Critical Theory and Social Pathology. In: Hammer E et al. (eds) Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School. Routledge, London, pp. 131–152 Competing interests Fromm E (1997) The fear of freedom. Routledge, London The author declares no competing interests. Freud S (2002) Civilization and its discontents. Penguin, London Foucault M (2004) Naissance de la biopolitique. Galimard, Paris Additional information Harvey D (2014) Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Profile Books, Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to B.H. London Henkelmann K, Jäckel C, Stahl A, Wünsch N, Zopes B (eds) (2020) Konformis- Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints tische Rebellen. Zur Aktualität des Autoritären Charakters. Verbrecher Verlag, Berlin Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in Herzog B (2018) Marx’ critique of ideology for discours analysis: from analysis of published maps and institutional affiliations. ideologies to social critique. Critic Discourse Stud https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17405904.2018.1457549 Herzog B (2021) Ideologies as false communicative practices. J Multicult Discourse https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2021.1891237 Heumann M, Nachtwey O (2020) Regressive Rebellen. Konturen eines Sozialtyps Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons des neuen Autoritarismus. In: Henkelmann K et al. (eds) Konformistische Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Rebellen. Zur Aktualität des Autoritären Charakters. Verbrecher Verlag, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give Berlin, pp. 385–401 appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Honneth A (1995) The struggle for recognition: the moral grammar of social Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party conflicts. Polity Press, Cambridge material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless Honneth A (2008) Critical theory. In: Moran D (ed.) The Routledge companion to indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the twentieth century philosophy. Routledge, London/New York, pp. 784–813 article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory Honneth A (2011) Das Recht der Freiheit. Suhrkamp, Berlin regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from Horkheimer M (ed) (2005) Studien über Autorität und Familie. For- the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/ schungsberichte aus dem Institut für Sozialforschung. Dietrich zu Klampen licenses/by/4.0/. Verlag, Lüneburg Ikäheimo H (2002) On the genus and species of recognition. Inquiry 45:447–462 Jaeggi R (2014) Alienation. Columbia University Press, New York © The Author(s) 2021

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 8:135 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00819-5 9